I asked the admin about readmitting you. Concerning the 8th Commandment, you posted your remarks publically, therefore there is not breaking of the 8th commandment by analyzing and reacting to your words.
No one is attacking you personally, but rather attacking the ideas (especially the one about espousing shutting down and sel…
I asked the admin about readmitting you. Concerning the 8th Commandment, you posted your remarks publically, therefore there is not breaking of the 8th commandment by analyzing and reacting to your words.
No one is attacking you personally, but rather attacking the ideas (especially the one about espousing shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't tow the line and do things the way that the hardliners want).
The 8th commandment forbids making “private” sins public in order to shame the person, but if an act is public, as when a leader or board makes decisions or when someone speaks or writes publicly, they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down. If you are not familiar with the selection from Luther's Large Catechism on the Eighth Commandment, here it is:
"284 All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."
There are examples of public reproof throughout the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist publicly rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy by saying, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Stephen publicly rebuked the hard-hearted Jews by declaring, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:51-52).
Jesus Himself, in an entire chapter (Matthew 23) publicly rebukes the Pharisees and the teachers of the law before the “crowds and to His disciples” (Matthew 23:1). He starts off His scathing discourse by telling His hearers to obey what the leaders say for good order, but not do what they do: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (23:3).
One of Jesus’ most damning accusations is the following statement in verses 27-28, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
Go to the Old Testament, randomly pick any of the prophets, and you will find statements of public condemnation of the people and their leaders. I’ll just pick a few from the first chapter of Isaiah.
God, through Isaiah the prophet, publicly rebukes the leadership of Judah: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” (Isaiah 1:10). “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (1:16-17). “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them” (1:23).
All this to say that holding people publicly accountable for their actions and their decisions when their actions and decisions are contrary to the will of our God is not a sin. In fact, it is in keeping with the best of Biblical, and therefore Lutheran, tradition. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light." -- Ephesians 5:11-13
I am confused, you said "they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down." But, surely it is gossip to not allow a person access to read what is being written when they are being discussed in a negative and uncharitable fashion? What do our confessions say about gossip?
I have no problem with public reproof. If I am wrong show me from scripture how and why. I will repent and work on my shortcomings. I do find it strange that I am being reproved for dressing my daughter with dignity, for worrying about the well being of members of the other sex, and for wanting chastity to once again become a virtue in the church. I wonder what Luther would write about all these issues. Which side would he come down on? From the Confessions you should be able to tell me.
You mention our Lord castigating the Pharisees. I don't know if you are implying that I am pharisaical for wanting virtue in my children. You cannot possibly mean that? Or perhaps you do not have children yet and have not thought through what you are saying. Remember that the people Christ granted faith to sought afterwards to live God fearing lives. The woman accused of adultery He told to go and sin no more. The woman at the well was granted repentance and changed her life. We sing each week with King David, "Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me..."
All. that aside, the admin of the group messaged, she did not know which Wanita Wood it was who was blocked yesterday, so that has now been cleared up and I have been granted access. I thank you for having intervened for me. I haven't gone to read all the negative comments, I think perhaps it would depress me too much.
In your first paragraph, you mention being shut out and not being able to read comments, but in your last paragraph you admit that I advocated for you and got you reinstated, so how is that gossip? I did not know you were shut out and I put the original post also on your platform as a way to follow Matthew 18.
Concerning the issue of reproof, head coverings, appropriate dress, modesty, etc. are not the issue that I am raising (as I said in previous replies). I definitely want all people to give a good witness in the way that they act and the way that they choose to dress. Yet, these are all Adiaphora and you may choose whatever practices best fit your informed reading of the Scriptures and the Confessions and best suit your preferred manner of life and personal devotion. If you feel like you want to wear a head covering, in the freedom of the Gospel (Gal. 5:1, Col. 2:16-17) you have that freedom. Just don't mandate to other women that they have to do so. It's an Adiaphora.
As an aside, I have an adult daughter so I did have to go through the joys of trying to find modest clothing that my daughter also would be willing to wear to school. In addition, I am a Lutheran high school teacher so I fight this battle with my students every day.
Back to the issue, the problem is the list of recommendations for how leaders can win high offices in the church. Some of these recommendations are not Biblical and certainly not in a spirit of the love of God who wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (most notably the one about shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't abide by the way you think they should be run and the comment about there shouldn't be a "big tent" of Lutheranism-- implying that there is only one way-- your way-- to practice the faith).
The way to change hearts is to preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills in the hearts and minds of those who hear that Word (Augsburg Confession V).
If you need me to cite the Confessions on certain issues, let me know which ones you would like references for. As I told your husband, who incidentally hasn't replied since I asked him to give Scriptural and Confessional citations for his assertion that only the pastor can read the Scripture lessons in the Divine Service, all assertions should be backed up by these sources and not just based on human wisdom or opinions.
1. Kevin, no one on the FB page had ever seen me interact with it, because I was not a member. You were all happy to continue complaining about the content. You alone came across to engage with me. I commended you for that.
When someone sent me a message telling me of your FB page, and what was being discussed, I applied for membership and when asked the question for why, I stated specifically that it was to answer the allegations and concerns addressed on the page about this article.
I have not gossiped here about anyone. It is an open forum for all to see, and for all to comment on. That's not how gossip works.
2. I have stated in the article and twice in the comments that I do not wear head coverings. I have also stated that scripture tells us to. I'm certainly not telling any other woman to do something I myself am not doing. Please quote for me where I have said that any other woman needs to either wear head coverings or dress the way I and my daughters dress.
3. You have a daughter you have gone through this exact thing with, so you understand exactly what I have been going through, yet decided to spend a whole lot of your time and searches to argue against something I have not said.
4. I engage with people at my office every day, I give them our book "The Narrow Way simply shown" and invite them to our church. Thank you for the encouragement for me to continue doing that. My reasoning is that if they have a book, you never know when they might be at their lowest point and there on their shelf is the gospel waiting for them. The Narrow Way is a great explanation of Lutheranism. You can find it as a free download on our website.
5. Thank you for your offer to search the Confessions. I did ask you above to search for how we are to deal with gossip and modesty. Perhaps this is what sparked your changing the discussion to it now being about me dictating to other women how to dress.
I apologize if I did not read the article carefully enough to notice that you were not advocating head coverings or encouraging others to do so. This is my mistake and I apologize. I am sorry that this has become the issue that it has become and I see that from your article you were mainly espousing modesty in dress and only using the head covering issue as a jumping off point.
I will say that I have appreciated the moderate tone of your responses. This is one thing our synod desperately needs, namely for people to sit down (whether virtually or preferably in person) and talk through their issues, always treating the other as a brother or sister in Christ. We can disagree amicably and in so doing build up the entire Body of Christ.
This whole issue started when one of our more active members noticed a discussion of your article on another Facebook group that claims to be Lutheran. While claiming to not want to be "political," there has been a double standard there, on other "Lutheran" groups, and even on the synod's own page where issues that are more likely to be supported by those of the high-church liturgical group are allowed to be discussed but when we ask for a discussion about issues that relate to Concordia, Ann Arbor and how the community has been treated they are almost immediately shut down and or deleted. This is where your site got drawn in.
As someone who regularly comments on Concordia Matters about issues of theology, I thought I would address the topic of head coverings so that I could inform members of the group who maybe were wondering about the issue since it was brought up. I really didn't have any concerns about Ad Crucem until someone sent me a link to the article about the recommendations for those seeking political office. This is where my problem lies, not with head covering or with modesty.
I am sorry that you were not immediately able to respond to the comments. That's not how we operate. We welcome discussion and debate and welcome all perspectives as long as people are respectful and act in a Christian manner with their posts and replies. Many of us have been blocked from certain groups and even the synod's Facebook page simply because they don't want any discussion of perspectives that they do not support.
Thank you for your ministry to the church and I pray that you will be able to shine the light of Christ to everyone you meet. Concerning the "recommendations" article, I do wish that some of the points would have been put forth with more sensitivity to those who are equally Confessional and faithful, but do not hold to the beliefs and practices of the current synod leadership.
That is incredibly gracious of you, thank you Kevin. I agree thoroughly, we as the church need to discuss important issues in the most Christ aware way possible. Life is too short to create enemies in the Body of Christ, we have enough problems with the world and our own sinful condition.
If you feel that you should, please do explain to the people on the board that this was a bit of a misunderstanding.
We had a misunderstanding about the head coverings and I acknowledge that. However, I am still concerned about some of your assertions on the synod recommendations article.
If you have not seen our side of the CUAA story, please take a bit of time to look at the following website -- https://cuaacoalition.com
I think you will find it to be different from the "official" story being put forth by the synod. God's blessings.
You have been most charitable and have demonstrated a willingness to dialogue reasonably about the issues with the goal of Christian peace and concord. For that, I thank you.
Perhaps you should read it carefully and decide whether you want to be associated with its assertions since it poorly represents Ad Crucem as being intolerant, opposed to any other position than your husband's, and actively supporting the dismantling of great Christian ministries like Concordia, Ann Arbor.
I have communicated with him, but he won't respond with any justifications from the Scriptures of the Confessions on his assertions. He recently asserted that the "errant churches" he referred to in the article could be identified by the simple test of allowing lay people to read the Scriptures in church. I asked him to cite proof from the Confessions for this but he has not responded.
My husband is my head. I’m proud to be associated with whatever he says or does, even when I don’t know the minutiae. He and I have different interests and write about what interests us. He would never think to write about the happenings in my kitchen or going dress shopping. I’m not interested in politics or academia.
His concerns for the LCMS are probably far more similar to yours than first glance. He is incredibly analytical and looking 100 years out. When engaging with others it’s good to look for common ground to start with.
His insights over the 30+ years we have been married have been spot on. I trust him to analyze any situation and to suggest the wisest course. It may sound unpopular at the time, but it will probably solve whatever crisis he addresses.
Pruning is good for each of us as individuals and also for our institutions. Our Lord so beautifully describes it in John 15.
Just to let you know, as you asked, I made a post on Concordia Matters concerning the head covering misunderstanding. Thank you again for the kind and thoughtful discussion. Here is the text of the post:
---
"I must say that I have had very charitable discussions with Wanita Wood, the wife of the editor of Ad Crucem. She seems to have a spirit desiring reconciliation and open dialogue.
I did not read the head covering article close enough to note that she was not advocating for a compulsion in this practice, namely that all women should cover their heads in church. Rather, she was using the topic as a jumping off point to discuss modesty.
I can't speak to all of her beliefs or the beliefs of her husband, but I have found her charitable and Christian in tone and welcoming to a reasoned discussion of the issues.
I asked her husband for Scriptural and Confessional proof for his assertions (most recently the assertion that a church is "errant" if it allows anyone other than an ordained minister to read the Scripture lessons during a service, but I haven't heard anything back since I made the request for proof from these sources."
Hi, Wanita.
I asked the admin about readmitting you. Concerning the 8th Commandment, you posted your remarks publically, therefore there is not breaking of the 8th commandment by analyzing and reacting to your words.
No one is attacking you personally, but rather attacking the ideas (especially the one about espousing shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't tow the line and do things the way that the hardliners want).
The 8th commandment forbids making “private” sins public in order to shame the person, but if an act is public, as when a leader or board makes decisions or when someone speaks or writes publicly, they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down. If you are not familiar with the selection from Luther's Large Catechism on the Eighth Commandment, here it is:
"284 All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."
There are examples of public reproof throughout the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:7-10, John the Baptist publicly rebukes the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy by saying, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Stephen publicly rebuked the hard-hearted Jews by declaring, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:51-52).
Jesus Himself, in an entire chapter (Matthew 23) publicly rebukes the Pharisees and the teachers of the law before the “crowds and to His disciples” (Matthew 23:1). He starts off His scathing discourse by telling His hearers to obey what the leaders say for good order, but not do what they do: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (23:3).
One of Jesus’ most damning accusations is the following statement in verses 27-28, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”
Go to the Old Testament, randomly pick any of the prophets, and you will find statements of public condemnation of the people and their leaders. I’ll just pick a few from the first chapter of Isaiah.
God, through Isaiah the prophet, publicly rebukes the leadership of Judah: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” (Isaiah 1:10). “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (1:16-17). “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them” (1:23).
All this to say that holding people publicly accountable for their actions and their decisions when their actions and decisions are contrary to the will of our God is not a sin. In fact, it is in keeping with the best of Biblical, and therefore Lutheran, tradition. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light." -- Ephesians 5:11-13
I am confused, you said "they can be publicly be shown their error, yet always with Christian kindness, love, and in the spirit of building up and not tearing down." But, surely it is gossip to not allow a person access to read what is being written when they are being discussed in a negative and uncharitable fashion? What do our confessions say about gossip?
I have no problem with public reproof. If I am wrong show me from scripture how and why. I will repent and work on my shortcomings. I do find it strange that I am being reproved for dressing my daughter with dignity, for worrying about the well being of members of the other sex, and for wanting chastity to once again become a virtue in the church. I wonder what Luther would write about all these issues. Which side would he come down on? From the Confessions you should be able to tell me.
You mention our Lord castigating the Pharisees. I don't know if you are implying that I am pharisaical for wanting virtue in my children. You cannot possibly mean that? Or perhaps you do not have children yet and have not thought through what you are saying. Remember that the people Christ granted faith to sought afterwards to live God fearing lives. The woman accused of adultery He told to go and sin no more. The woman at the well was granted repentance and changed her life. We sing each week with King David, "Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me..."
All. that aside, the admin of the group messaged, she did not know which Wanita Wood it was who was blocked yesterday, so that has now been cleared up and I have been granted access. I thank you for having intervened for me. I haven't gone to read all the negative comments, I think perhaps it would depress me too much.
Hi, Wanita.
In your first paragraph, you mention being shut out and not being able to read comments, but in your last paragraph you admit that I advocated for you and got you reinstated, so how is that gossip? I did not know you were shut out and I put the original post also on your platform as a way to follow Matthew 18.
Concerning the issue of reproof, head coverings, appropriate dress, modesty, etc. are not the issue that I am raising (as I said in previous replies). I definitely want all people to give a good witness in the way that they act and the way that they choose to dress. Yet, these are all Adiaphora and you may choose whatever practices best fit your informed reading of the Scriptures and the Confessions and best suit your preferred manner of life and personal devotion. If you feel like you want to wear a head covering, in the freedom of the Gospel (Gal. 5:1, Col. 2:16-17) you have that freedom. Just don't mandate to other women that they have to do so. It's an Adiaphora.
As an aside, I have an adult daughter so I did have to go through the joys of trying to find modest clothing that my daughter also would be willing to wear to school. In addition, I am a Lutheran high school teacher so I fight this battle with my students every day.
Back to the issue, the problem is the list of recommendations for how leaders can win high offices in the church. Some of these recommendations are not Biblical and certainly not in a spirit of the love of God who wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (most notably the one about shutting down and selling the Concordias if they don't abide by the way you think they should be run and the comment about there shouldn't be a "big tent" of Lutheranism-- implying that there is only one way-- your way-- to practice the faith).
The way to change hearts is to preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills in the hearts and minds of those who hear that Word (Augsburg Confession V).
If you need me to cite the Confessions on certain issues, let me know which ones you would like references for. As I told your husband, who incidentally hasn't replied since I asked him to give Scriptural and Confessional citations for his assertion that only the pastor can read the Scripture lessons in the Divine Service, all assertions should be backed up by these sources and not just based on human wisdom or opinions.
God's blessings.
1. Kevin, no one on the FB page had ever seen me interact with it, because I was not a member. You were all happy to continue complaining about the content. You alone came across to engage with me. I commended you for that.
When someone sent me a message telling me of your FB page, and what was being discussed, I applied for membership and when asked the question for why, I stated specifically that it was to answer the allegations and concerns addressed on the page about this article.
I have not gossiped here about anyone. It is an open forum for all to see, and for all to comment on. That's not how gossip works.
2. I have stated in the article and twice in the comments that I do not wear head coverings. I have also stated that scripture tells us to. I'm certainly not telling any other woman to do something I myself am not doing. Please quote for me where I have said that any other woman needs to either wear head coverings or dress the way I and my daughters dress.
3. You have a daughter you have gone through this exact thing with, so you understand exactly what I have been going through, yet decided to spend a whole lot of your time and searches to argue against something I have not said.
4. I engage with people at my office every day, I give them our book "The Narrow Way simply shown" and invite them to our church. Thank you for the encouragement for me to continue doing that. My reasoning is that if they have a book, you never know when they might be at their lowest point and there on their shelf is the gospel waiting for them. The Narrow Way is a great explanation of Lutheranism. You can find it as a free download on our website.
5. Thank you for your offer to search the Confessions. I did ask you above to search for how we are to deal with gossip and modesty. Perhaps this is what sparked your changing the discussion to it now being about me dictating to other women how to dress.
This was never the discussion.
Hi, Wanita.
I apologize if I did not read the article carefully enough to notice that you were not advocating head coverings or encouraging others to do so. This is my mistake and I apologize. I am sorry that this has become the issue that it has become and I see that from your article you were mainly espousing modesty in dress and only using the head covering issue as a jumping off point.
I will say that I have appreciated the moderate tone of your responses. This is one thing our synod desperately needs, namely for people to sit down (whether virtually or preferably in person) and talk through their issues, always treating the other as a brother or sister in Christ. We can disagree amicably and in so doing build up the entire Body of Christ.
This whole issue started when one of our more active members noticed a discussion of your article on another Facebook group that claims to be Lutheran. While claiming to not want to be "political," there has been a double standard there, on other "Lutheran" groups, and even on the synod's own page where issues that are more likely to be supported by those of the high-church liturgical group are allowed to be discussed but when we ask for a discussion about issues that relate to Concordia, Ann Arbor and how the community has been treated they are almost immediately shut down and or deleted. This is where your site got drawn in.
As someone who regularly comments on Concordia Matters about issues of theology, I thought I would address the topic of head coverings so that I could inform members of the group who maybe were wondering about the issue since it was brought up. I really didn't have any concerns about Ad Crucem until someone sent me a link to the article about the recommendations for those seeking political office. This is where my problem lies, not with head covering or with modesty.
I am sorry that you were not immediately able to respond to the comments. That's not how we operate. We welcome discussion and debate and welcome all perspectives as long as people are respectful and act in a Christian manner with their posts and replies. Many of us have been blocked from certain groups and even the synod's Facebook page simply because they don't want any discussion of perspectives that they do not support.
Thank you for your ministry to the church and I pray that you will be able to shine the light of Christ to everyone you meet. Concerning the "recommendations" article, I do wish that some of the points would have been put forth with more sensitivity to those who are equally Confessional and faithful, but do not hold to the beliefs and practices of the current synod leadership.
God's blessings.
That is incredibly gracious of you, thank you Kevin. I agree thoroughly, we as the church need to discuss important issues in the most Christ aware way possible. Life is too short to create enemies in the Body of Christ, we have enough problems with the world and our own sinful condition.
If you feel that you should, please do explain to the people on the board that this was a bit of a misunderstanding.
We had a misunderstanding about the head coverings and I acknowledge that. However, I am still concerned about some of your assertions on the synod recommendations article.
If you have not seen our side of the CUAA story, please take a bit of time to look at the following website -- https://cuaacoalition.com
I think you will find it to be different from the "official" story being put forth by the synod. God's blessings.
Thanks Kevin, I haven’t read my husband’s article on the subject. It’s best if you communicate directly with him.
You have been most charitable and have demonstrated a willingness to dialogue reasonably about the issues with the goal of Christian peace and concord. For that, I thank you.
Perhaps you should read it carefully and decide whether you want to be associated with its assertions since it poorly represents Ad Crucem as being intolerant, opposed to any other position than your husband's, and actively supporting the dismantling of great Christian ministries like Concordia, Ann Arbor.
I have communicated with him, but he won't respond with any justifications from the Scriptures of the Confessions on his assertions. He recently asserted that the "errant churches" he referred to in the article could be identified by the simple test of allowing lay people to read the Scriptures in church. I asked him to cite proof from the Confessions for this but he has not responded.
https://www.adcrucem.news/p/head-coverings-yes-but-perhaps-we/comment/84303580?utm_source=activity_item#comment-84450728?utm_source=activity_item
This speaks poorly of Ad Crucem. God's peace.
My husband is my head. I’m proud to be associated with whatever he says or does, even when I don’t know the minutiae. He and I have different interests and write about what interests us. He would never think to write about the happenings in my kitchen or going dress shopping. I’m not interested in politics or academia.
His concerns for the LCMS are probably far more similar to yours than first glance. He is incredibly analytical and looking 100 years out. When engaging with others it’s good to look for common ground to start with.
His insights over the 30+ years we have been married have been spot on. I trust him to analyze any situation and to suggest the wisest course. It may sound unpopular at the time, but it will probably solve whatever crisis he addresses.
Pruning is good for each of us as individuals and also for our institutions. Our Lord so beautifully describes it in John 15.
Understood. God's blessings to you and your family.
Morning, Wanita.
Just to let you know, as you asked, I made a post on Concordia Matters concerning the head covering misunderstanding. Thank you again for the kind and thoughtful discussion. Here is the text of the post:
---
"I must say that I have had very charitable discussions with Wanita Wood, the wife of the editor of Ad Crucem. She seems to have a spirit desiring reconciliation and open dialogue.
I did not read the head covering article close enough to note that she was not advocating for a compulsion in this practice, namely that all women should cover their heads in church. Rather, she was using the topic as a jumping off point to discuss modesty.
I can't speak to all of her beliefs or the beliefs of her husband, but I have found her charitable and Christian in tone and welcoming to a reasoned discussion of the issues.
I asked her husband for Scriptural and Confessional proof for his assertions (most recently the assertion that a church is "errant" if it allows anyone other than an ordained minister to read the Scripture lessons during a service, but I haven't heard anything back since I made the request for proof from these sources."
That is lovely and very kind of you!!!
Thank you